I Treated the Way You Treated Me: The Effect of Leader Hypocrisy on Employees’ Voice Behavior

Figures & data

Figure 1 Theoretical model.

Table 1 Testing of Reliability and Validity

Items	α	CR	AVE	KMO
Leader Hypocrisy	0.895	0.927	0.761	0.838
Cognition-based trust	0.880	0.917	0.735	0.835
Affect-based trust	0.956	0.968	0.883	0.878
Voice Behavior	0.908	0.929	0.685	0.913
Moral Identity	0.925	0.944	0.770	0.899

Abbreviations: α, Cronbach’s Alpha; CR, Composite Reliability; AVE, Average Variance Extracted; KMO, Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin.

Table 2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Model and Structure	χ2	df	χ2/df	RMSEA	CFI	TLI	SRMR
Five-factor model	401.95	220	1.83	0.05	0.97	0.97	0.04
Four-factor model^a	1150.34	224	5.14	0.11	0.85	0.83	0.13
Four-factor model^b	1935.91	224	8.64	0.15	0.72	0.69	0.14
Four-factor model^c	1210.45	224	5.4	0.11	0.84	0.82	0.1
Four-factor model^d	1183.59	224	5.28	0.11	0.84	0.82	0.1
Four-factor model^e	972.91	224	4.34	0.1	0.88	0.86	0.08
Four-factor model^f	1097.29	224	4.9	0.1	0.86	0.84	0.1
Four-factor model^g	1079.48	224	4.82	0.1	0.86	0.84	0.1
Four-factor model^h	1461.47	224	6.52	0.12	0.8	0.77	0.13
Four-factor model^i	1623.67	224	7.25	0.13	0.77	0.74	0.13
Four-factor model^j	1350.77	224	6.03	0.12	0.82	0.8	0.1
Single-factor model	3877.41	230	16.86	0.21	0.41	0.35	0.15

Notes: Five-factor model: hypothesized model; Four-factor model. ^aLeader hypocrisy and cognition-based trust combined; Four-factor model ^bLeader hypocrisy and affect-based trust combined; Four-factor model. ^cLeader hypocrisy and voice behavior combined; Four-factor model. ^dLeader hypocrisy and moral identity combined; Four-factor model. ^eCognition-based trust and affect-based trust combined; Four-factor model. ^fCognition-based trust and voice behavior combined; Four-factor model. ^gCognition-based trust and moral identity combined; Four-factor model. ^hAffect-based trust and voice behavior combined; Four-factor model. ⁱAffect-based trust and moral identity combined; Four-factor model. ^jVoice behavior and moral identity combined; Single-factor model: all variables combined.

Abbreviations: χ2, Chi-Square; df, Degrees of Freedom; χ2/df, Chi-Square divided by degrees of freedom; RMSEA, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; CFI, Comparative Fit Index; TLI, Tucker-Lewis Index; SRMR, Standardized Root Mean Square Residual.

Table 3 Descriptive Statistic

Variables	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1.Gender	–
2.Age	0.03	–
3.Educational level	0.02	0.12*	–
4.Tenure	0.06	0.05	0.05	–
5.Working years with the leader	0.06	0.17**	0.07	−0.05	–
6.Leader hypocrisy	0.05	−0.10	0.15**	−0.10*	−0.04	–
7.Cognition-based trust	0.01	0.09	−0.09	−0.04	0.03	−0.24**	–
8.Affect -based trust	0.06	0.03	−0.19**	0.02	−0.07	−0.25**	0.46**	–
9.Voice behavior	−0.03	0.12*	0.01	0.11*	0.10	−0.23**	0.31**	0.40**	–
10.Moral identity	0.06	−0.12*	0.03	−0.04	−0.10	0.28**	−0.35**	−0.34**	−0.42**	–
Mean	1.51	3.72	3.39	3.08	2.45	2.60	3.34	3.47	3.36	2.38
SE	0.50	0.98	0.96	1.28	1.06	0.81	0.88	1.10	0.84	0.90

Notes: * p <0.05, ** p <0.01. Gender: 1= male, 2 = female; Age: 1= 18 and below, 2 = 18–25, 3 = 26–35, 4 = 36–45, 5 = 46 −55, 6 = above 56; Educational level: 1 = Middle school and below, 2 = high school, 3 = Junior college, 4 = Bachelor, 5 = Master and above; Tenure: 1 = one year and below, 2 = 1–2 years, 3 = 2–3 years, 4 = 3–5 years, 5 = 5–10 years, 6= 10 years and above; Working years with the current leader: 1 = one year and below, 2= 1–2 years. 3 = 2–3 years, 4= 3–5 years, 5= 5–10 years, 6= 10 years and above. SE = Standard Error.

Table 4 Analysis Result of Direct Effect & Mediating Effect

Pathway	Effect	SE	95% CI
			Lower Level	Upper Level
Leader hypocrisy → Cognition -based trust	−0.25***	0.06	−0.37	−0.14
Leader hypocrisy→ Affect-based trust	−0.31***	0.07	−0.45	−0.17
Cognition-based trust →Voice behavior	0.26***	0.05	0.17	0.36
Affect-based trust → Voice behavior	0.30***	0.04	0.22	0.37
Leader hypocrisy → Cognition -based trust → Voice behavior	−0.07	0.02	−0.11	−0.03
Leader hypocrisy → Affect-based trust →Voice behavior	−0.09	0.02	−0.15	0.05

Note: *** p <0.001.

Abbreviations: SE, Standard Error; CI, Confidence Interval.

Table 5 Summary of Moderating Effect of Moral Identity on the Relationship Between Leader Hypocrisy and Cognition-Based Trust & Affect-Based Trust

Variables	Cognition-Based Trust				Affect-Based Trust
	Effect	SE	95% CI		Moderating Effect	SE	95% CI
			Lower Level	Upper Level			Lower Level	Upper Level
Leader hypocrisy	−0.17**	0.06	−0.28	−0.06	−0.20**	0.07	−0.34	−0.07
Moral identity	−0.30***	0.05	−0.39	−0.20	−0.37***	0.06	−0.49	−0.25
Leader hypocrisy × Moral identity	−0.13*	0.06	−0.24	−0.01	−0.17*	0.07	−0.31	−0.02

Note: * p <0.05, ** p <0.01, *** p <0.001; SE = Standard Error; CI = Confidence Interval.

Figure 2 The moderating effect of moral identity on the relationship between leader hypocrisy and cognition-based trust.

Figure 3 The moderating effect of moral identity on the relationship between leader hypocrisy and affect-based trust.